Norv Turner

One of my sources just forwarded me a copy of a rather intriguing document about Norv Turner. In the remainder of this post, I plan to summarize the contents of that document in an effort to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. The nitty-gritty of what I'm about to write is this: Idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Norv spends his leisure time devising ever more obnoxious ways to irrationalize thinking on every issue. He wants to get me thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most stultiloquent manifestations.

Norv recently claimed that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a purblind orthodoxy, Norv himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of pertinacious interventionism. He is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Norv is demagogism. Why? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that Norv insists that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject.

You don't have to say anything specifically about Norv for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should rage, rage against the dying of the light. He has hatched all sorts of saturnine, crazy plans. Remember Norv's attempt to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity? No? That's because Norv's so good at concealing his fatuous, unrealistic activities.

Norv has remarked that the laws of nature don't apply to him. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for you. For starters, griping about Norv will not make him stop trying to foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind. There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Norv finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that by allowing Norv to revive an arcadian past that never existed, we are allowing him to play puppet master.

Though the wily spring up like grass and the worst sorts of capricious gasbags I've ever seen flourish, they are doomed to be destroyed forever -- especially if we demonstrate conclusively that human life is full of artificiality, perversion, and misery, much of which is caused by recalcitrant, uneducated heresiarchs. In particular, if I thought that Norv's ideas had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that Norv would have us believe that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Not surprisingly, his evidence for that completely unregenerate claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, he has a checkered track record for accuracy. I warrant it would be more accurate for Norv to say that if society were a beer bottle -- something, I believe, that Norv holds in high regard -- he would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the homeless like to drink.

I was, however, going to forget about the whole thing when it suddenly occurred to me that Norv's language consists largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheer, cloudy vagueness. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. Norv should get off his pedestal and walk a day in our shoes. Disguised in this drollery is an important message: I can reword my point as follows. Norv is far more interested in fattening himself on the various processes of decay in our society than he is in helping us eschew boisterous insurrectionism.

Norv will probably respond to this post just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "addlepated" or "vulgar". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise. I see two problems with his inveracities on a very fundamental level. First, he is utterly -- and I mean utterly -- anal-retentive. And second, anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that it is both frustrating and frightening to observe the extreme ignorance -- no, idiocy -- present in his animadversions. What may be news, however, is that Norv's most steadfast claim is that two-faced blatherskites are easily housebroken. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, Norv will defile the present and destroy the future within a short period of time. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will question authority. Only then can we act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even Fabianism.

To be entirely candid, Norv's worshippers are too lazy to proscribe Norv and his stooges as the most dangerous enemies of the people. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Norv talks a lot about extremism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can he argue for something he's never defined? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that he wants nothing less than to devise irrational scams to get money for nothing. His cohorts then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with inerudite spouters who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that Norv wants you to believe that all it takes to start a rabbit farm is a magician's magic hat. You should be wary of such claims. Be aware! Be skeptical! Think! Do not be diverted, deceived, or mesmerized by Norv's wild values.

The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, Norv has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Norv's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Norv has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but we must unite rich and poor, young and old. Only then can a society free of his meddlesome, pigheaded assertions blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Norv's thralls take for granted. Of course, he once tried to shower what I call stroppy, treasonous wimps with undeserved encomia. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you truly don't understand how Norv operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that he says that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely selfish and oleaginous lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Norv's serfs.

It would be bad enough if Norv's peons were merely trying to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. But their attempts to exclude all people and proposals that oppose Norv's despicable cajoleries are just plain predatory. By framing the question in this way we see that my love for people necessitates that I get the Norv Turner monkey off our backs and off other people's backs as well. Yes, I face opposition from Norv. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. I'm not one to criticize, but when he was first found trying to saddle the economy with crippling debt, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Norv is planning to dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches, I'm decidedly downright terrified. Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with Norv Turner?

The entire BoltTalk staff puts in many hours to write their stuff.
I take some time for BoltTalk art too.
What's your point?

Click to expand...

Though sometimes your rants against one Norv Turner that sound like incoherent rambling with a variety of dangerous logical fallacies upset me and other posters I still believe you that you should voice your opinion loud and clear and make it your opinion with no sarcastic, condescending undertones unlike what Mr. Pepper has done here. This was just grade A garbage. The point was made way back in the first paragraph but it just keeps going on and on in a very condescending, sarcastic tone.

I've tried to keep quiet, but I just can't hold it in any longer. I have to tell everyone that the solutions that Aggieman's spin doctors are so proud of are woefully inhumane. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this post and to Aggieman himself.

Our national media is controlled by irrational, ignominious vulgarians. That's why you probably haven't heard that we must steer clear of simplistic, monocausal explanations and mythic bogeymen. I put that observation into this post just to let you see that the downward spiral of society and the concomitant growing threat of antagonism are the natural results of Aggieman's homicidal, noisome asseverations. It's that simple.

If Aggieman is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument. If an attempt to pilfer the national treasure isn't tactless, it certainly is meretricious. In point of fact, it is immature and stupid of him to make a big deal out of nothing. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities, and that's why I say that the general public is finally starting to become aware of his duplicity and complicity. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the deluded manner in which Aggieman has been trying to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change. His accusations are popular among ugly simpletons but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them. If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then Aggieman is clearly going to be the first to go.

Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although if society were a beer bottle -- something, I believe, that Aggieman holds in high regard -- he would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the homeless like to drink. The tone of his press releases is so far removed from reality I find myself questioning what color the sky must be in his world. He says that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely careerism-prone and nit-picky lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Aggieman's disciples.

I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Aggieman's publications. Videlicet, they impinge upon our daily lives. And that's saying nothing about how his most steadfast claim is that sin is good for the soul. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, many people who follow Aggieman's declamations have come to the erroneous conclusion that we should avoid personal responsibility. The truth of the matter is that he doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him.

This view dangerously underestimates the incorrigible quality of officialism. Aggieman may mean well but society must soon decide either to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now or else to let Aggieman make gruesome lummoxes out to be something they're not. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that as far as being prissy is concerned, none of Aggieman's serfs holds a candle to him. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to Aggieman.

Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that Aggieman likes to have difficult social issues presented to him in simple, black-and-white terms. It then follows that I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: His initiatives do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress.

When one looks at the increasing influence of charlatanism in our culture one sees that Aggieman's signature is on everything. So how come his fingerprints are nowhere to be found? That's the question that perplexes me the most because the first response to this from Aggieman's janissaries is perhaps that principles don't matter. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: The first lies that Aggieman told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun.

I have the following advice for Aggieman: If you can't manage to be grateful for all the things we've done for you, at least have a little dignity, don't whine, and don't expect to be treated like a fragile doll just because you have a theatrically hypersensitive soul and delusions of entitlement. You may be worried that he will jawbone aimlessly faster than you can say "lithochromatographic". If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that if history follows its course, it should be evident that Aggieman has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Aggieman's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Aggieman will do everything in his power to pose a threat to the survival of democracy. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Aggieman accuses me of being tyrannical whenever I state that for all his bombast about freedom, liberty, and tolerance, he still wants to wipe out delicate ecosystems. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen but the fact remains that Aggieman likes saying that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. Okay, that's a parody -- but not a very gross one. In point of fact, Aggieman coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his orations sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.

Aggieman keeps insisting that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and posts filled primarily with exclamation points. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did Aggieman's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "How can Aggieman be so disorganized?" The answer is rather depressing but I'll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to seize control of the power structure. Not yet, at least. But Aggieman refuses to come to terms with reality. He prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. To end this post, I would like to make a bet with Aggieman. I will gladly give Aggieman a day's salary if he can prove that his machinations are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals, as he insists. If Aggieman is unable to prove that, then his end of the bargain is to step aside while I explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. So, do we have a bet, Aggieman?

Wow, I couldn't even read this whole "STORY" much less write it. first couple of paragraphs sounded like a great comic book. Submit that story to reading rainbow, maybe they'll give you, you're own personal pan pizza with a middle finger in the middle. Go write a book pansie ***.:icon_rofl:

I've tried to keep quiet, but I just can't hold it in any longer. I have to tell everyone that the solutions that Aggieman's spin doctors are so proud of are woefully inhumane. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this post and to Aggieman himself.

Our national media is controlled by irrational, ignominious vulgarians. That's why you probably haven't heard that we must steer clear of simplistic, monocausal explanations and mythic bogeymen. I put that observation into this post just to let you see that the downward spiral of society and the concomitant growing threat of antagonism are the natural results of Aggieman's homicidal, noisome asseverations. It's that simple.

If Aggieman is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument. If an attempt to pilfer the national treasure isn't tactless, it certainly is meretricious. In point of fact, it is immature and stupid of him to make a big deal out of nothing. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities, and that's why I say that the general public is finally starting to become aware of his duplicity and complicity. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the deluded manner in which Aggieman has been trying to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change. His accusations are popular among ugly simpletons but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them. If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then Aggieman is clearly going to be the first to go.

Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although if society were a beer bottle -- something, I believe, that Aggieman holds in high regard -- he would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the homeless like to drink. The tone of his press releases is so far removed from reality I find myself questioning what color the sky must be in his world. He says that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely careerism-prone and nit-picky lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Aggieman's disciples.

I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Aggieman's publications. Videlicet, they impinge upon our daily lives. And that's saying nothing about how his most steadfast claim is that sin is good for the soul. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, many people who follow Aggieman's declamations have come to the erroneous conclusion that we should avoid personal responsibility. The truth of the matter is that he doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him.

This view dangerously underestimates the incorrigible quality of officialism. Aggieman may mean well but society must soon decide either to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now or else to let Aggieman make gruesome lummoxes out to be something they're not. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that as far as being prissy is concerned, none of Aggieman's serfs holds a candle to him. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to Aggieman.

Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that Aggieman likes to have difficult social issues presented to him in simple, black-and-white terms. It then follows that I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: His initiatives do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress.

When one looks at the increasing influence of charlatanism in our culture one sees that Aggieman's signature is on everything. So how come his fingerprints are nowhere to be found? That's the question that perplexes me the most because the first response to this from Aggieman's janissaries is perhaps that principles don't matter. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: The first lies that Aggieman told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun.

I have the following advice for Aggieman: If you can't manage to be grateful for all the things we've done for you, at least have a little dignity, don't whine, and don't expect to be treated like a fragile doll just because you have a theatrically hypersensitive soul and delusions of entitlement. You may be worried that he will jawbone aimlessly faster than you can say "lithochromatographic". If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that if history follows its course, it should be evident that Aggieman has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Aggieman's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Aggieman will do everything in his power to pose a threat to the survival of democracy. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Aggieman accuses me of being tyrannical whenever I state that for all his bombast about freedom, liberty, and tolerance, he still wants to wipe out delicate ecosystems. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen but the fact remains that Aggieman likes saying that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. Okay, that's a parody -- but not a very gross one. In point of fact, Aggieman coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his orations sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.

Aggieman keeps insisting that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and posts filled primarily with exclamation points. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did Aggieman's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "How can Aggieman be so disorganized?" The answer is rather depressing but I'll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to seize control of the power structure. Not yet, at least. But Aggieman refuses to come to terms with reality. He prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. To end this post, I would like to make a bet with Aggieman. I will gladly give Aggieman a day's salary if he can prove that his machinations are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals, as he insists. If Aggieman is unable to prove that, then his end of the bargain is to step aside while I explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. So, do we have a bet, Aggieman?

I am happy to report that I am working on my third book and I have decided NOT to do a reprint of "Whose Child?" or "Adoption Forum." So if you are interested in reading either title, get your copies soon, because I only have 900 more or so copies of each and then both titles will be listed as "out of print."

Now on to the excerpt...

Introduction
My Opinion

Allow me to formally introduce myself. My name is Kasey Hamner and I was adopted in the closed adoption system in the late 1960s. I’m currently a school psychologist and a licensed educational psychologist who works with special needs children, many of whom, as luck would have it, are also adopted or have been abandoned in some way. The longer I am in the reunion process, the more fascinated I become with the topic of adoption and its lifelong effects on members of the adoption triad––birth parents, adoptive parents, and the adoptee. In my adult life I have channeled this fascination by reaching out to the adoption community in order to better understand the realities of adoption from all sides of the triad. I started an advice column on the Internet and went to support group meetings to learn how to deal with my own lifelong adoption issues and to hopefully help others heal from their pain.

My parents, both teachers and in their thirties at the time, adopted me because my adoptive mother wanted a girl after giving birth to two boys. My adoptive father, who was emotionally absent from my life until I reached adulthood, was not sure if he wanted a third child because his two biological sons were more than he could handle. Unlike the vast majority of adoptive parents, my adoptive mother did not suffer from infertility, and therefore never had to go through a grieving process like most adoptive mothers. She basically had nothing to lose. She wanted to create the perfect family and refused to risk the burden of carrying and bearing a child again only to be disappointed by what she felt would be the arrival of yet another son.
If you have previously read any books on adoption, then you may recognize me as a textbook, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety adoptee. I displayed all the classic symptoms laid out in the adoption literature. Although I am a classic adoptee, I wish to make the point that I was not raised in a typical adoptive home. While my adoptive parents attempted to provide a loving, safe, and nurturing environment in which to raise me, I felt I was treated differently than my brothers. I was molested by my adoptive brother and felt unprotected by my adoptive parents. In my eyes, my adoptive mother was extremely controlling and was unable to see me as a person separate from her. While on the outside we looked like the perfect family, I never felt that I belonged. The soul connection was missing.

I survived in my adoptive family by presenting a false self, the self I thought my adoptive mother so desperately wanted, until I couldn’t pretend anymore. Growing up I did whatever I could to please my adoptive family, especially my adoptive mother. I was scared to death of my brother and I always looked for approval from my adoptive mother, which never came to my satisfaction. I wasn’t a troublemaker. I looked like I had it all together. I was a petite, overachieving actress who appeared to have adjusted well to her adoptive family. But in reality I trusted no one and waited for the next person to abandon me as I felt my birth mother had done. Of course, I was not aware of this until I reached adulthood.

My personal experiences of growing up adopted, my conversations with other adoptees and members of the adoption triad, and my studies and work with abandoned children have all proved to me that there are many common threads running through adoptees’ lives. The main issues that I see in others and have uncovered in my own life are fear of abandonment, self-sabotage, relationship difficulties, substance abuse, and an inability to trust and bond with others. In my case, I was never able to bond with my adoptive mother and I was only able to bond with my adoptive father after becoming an adult.

I sincerely appreciate the experts who have painted such an accurate picture of the other issues that adoptees also deal with, including loss, rejection, guilt/shame, grief, identity confusion, fear of intimacy, and control. I am here to illustrate how all those issues apply to me. The adoption literature often states that insecure attachments, common with adoptees, lead early in life to problems such as relationship difficulties, personality disorders, feelings of insecurity, and low self-esteem. My personal experience in these areas only adds to my conviction that I represent the typical adoptee.
Many books out there are feel-good stories that romanticize adoption as a fairy- tale answer to unplanned pregnancies or any other situation in which one chooses to relinquish a child. The reality of adoption is a far cry from the fantasies played out in so many fictional stories and movies that have the inevitable happy ending. In my opinion, adoption displaces not one, but two families. The reality of adoption affects adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents, and all other relatives, both birth and adoptive. It is crucial that the adoption worker inform all members of the triad about the effects that adoption can have on the child, whether adopted in an open or closed system, or through a private, independent,or county agency. The feelings are real and the ramifications are extensive for all members of the adoption triad. Although the initial trauma of separation is detrimental enough, it is the ultimate secrecy of adoption that perpetuates the trauma of the adoptee more than anything else.

In addition to being plagued by secrecy––the hallmark of adoption––adoption is also one of the most misunderstood subjects. People generally don’t want to talk about it. Legislators in favor of sealed records might answer my plea for open records if they knew more of the truths of how secrecy in adoption adversely affected my entire life.

The prerequisite to understanding this letter is to have encountered some of Miss Mountain Douche's communiqués and to have realized how juvenile they are. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in Mountain's logic because she unequivocally doesn't use any logic. For reasons which I will adumbrate presently, what we have been imparting to Mountain -- or what she has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with her current "reality". Not yet, at least. But she is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore!

I warrant that Mountain will certainly advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills eventually. I base this confident prediction on, among other things, the fact that if she thinks that she can make me die an agonizing death, be given no burial place, and have my soul chased by demons in Gehenna from one room to another for all eternity and more then she's barking up the wrong tree. Are you prepared to discuss this, Mountain? There are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Mountain doing some offensive thing every few weeks.

One might conclude that as conscious, sentient beings aware of our actions and capable of response, we must shout back at Mountain's propaganda. Alternatively, one might conclude that we must recognize that there's a distinction to be made here. In either case, Mountain claims that violence and prejudice are funny. Well, I beg to differ.

If you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Mountain's latest prognoses. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that Mountain has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that she has the authority to issue licenses for practicing sectarianism. Then again, just because Mountain is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that boosterism is a wonderful thing. I cannot compromise with her; she is without principles. I cannot reason with her; she is without reason. But I can warn her and with a warning she must obviously take to heart: Her credos are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, if we take action then the sea of obscurantism, on which Mountain so heavily relies, will begin to dry up.

Mountain's subalterns are merely ciphers. Mountain is the one who decides whether or not to destroy our moral fiber. Mountain is the one who gives out the orders to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to her snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance. And Mountain is the one trying to conceal how it's unmistakably a tragedy that her goal in life is apparently to give rise to malign lie-virtuosas. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that Mountain's undertakings are like an enormous heathenism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence because if Mountain can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that we can stop antiheroism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for repressive politicos, I will personally deliver her Nobel Prize for Pudibund Rhetoric. In the meantime, most people react to Mountain's demented witticisms as they would to having a pile of steaming pig manure dumped on their doorstep. Even when they can cope, they resent having to do so. Speaking of resentment, Mountain has a strategy. Her strategy is to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Mountain.

Have you ever had a bad dream about Mountain trying to con us into believing that she can walk on water? Well, I have news for you. That wasn't a dream; it was real. Her intellectually challenged dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Vandalism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these contentious, judgmental trends is to raise insolent malefactresses out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. To be precise, she does not merely empty the meaning of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities. She does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

While Mountain has a right, as do we all, to believe whatever she wants about pauperism, it has long been obvious to attentive observers that unreasonable, out-of-touch theologasters, more than any other segment of the population, like to help disorganized roustabouts back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. But did you know that there is absolutely no evidence to support Mountain's accusations? Mountain doesn't want you to know that because thrasonical so-called experts serve as the priests in her cult of craven fetishism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Mountain's reflected glory, pausing only when Mountain instructs them to force us to do things or take stands against our will. What could be more blasphemous? It's an interesting question and its examination will help us understand how Mountain's mind works. Let me start by providing evidence that if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish.

Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that Mountain maintains that the media should "create" news rather than report it. This is complete -- or at least, incomplete -- baloney. For instance, Mountain fails to mention that almost every day, she outreaches herself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's sincerely breathtaking to watch her. If we let her shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for Mountain to tour the country promoting dirty absenteeism in lectures and radio talk show interviews.

Stirring up trouble is considered de rigueur by Mountain's camp, to put it mildly. All the same, some people are responsible and others are not. Mountain falls into the category of "not". If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then she is clearly going to be the first to go. Mountain is frightened that we might build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. That's why she's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that she focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, Mountain attempts to twist and distort facts to justify her feelings but that just goes to show that we must halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to put to rest unpatriotic and spleeny stratagems such as Mountain's.

Even without the malodorous ideology of unilateralism in the picture, we can still say that Mountain should start developing the parts of her brain that have been impaired by mysticism. At least then she'll stop trying to court an illiberal minority of snappish bitter-types. In essence, I am not predicting anything specific. I just have a feeling, an intuition, based on several things that are happening now that Mountain will punish dissent through intimidation, public ridicule, economic exclusion, imprisonment, and most extremely, death sooner or later. Finally, no letter about Miss Mountain Douche would be complete without mention of some of the thoroughly snooty schemes that she supports. Although there are a plenitude of examples from which to choose, the most snooty would have to be her proposal to commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility. That's the sort of thing that keeps me up at night.